Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 1741

control, N = 871

treatment, N = 871

p-value2

age

172

50.73 ± 12.67 (25 - 75)

50.82 ± 12.91 (25 - 75)

50.65 ± 12.50 (28 - 73)

0.931

Unknown

2

2

0

gender

174

0.708

f

138 (79%)

68 (78%)

70 (80%)

m

36 (21%)

19 (22%)

17 (20%)

occupation

174

0.914

day_training

4 (2.3%)

2 (2.3%)

2 (2.3%)

full_time

22 (13%)

12 (14%)

10 (11%)

homemaker

18 (10%)

8 (9.2%)

10 (11%)

other

2 (1.1%)

0 (0%)

2 (2.3%)

part_time

32 (18%)

16 (18%)

16 (18%)

retired

43 (25%)

21 (24%)

22 (25%)

self_employ

7 (4.0%)

4 (4.6%)

3 (3.4%)

student

2 (1.1%)

0 (0%)

2 (2.3%)

t_and_e

2 (1.1%)

1 (1.1%)

1 (1.1%)

unemploy

42 (24%)

23 (26%)

19 (22%)

marital

174

0.972

cohabitation

1 (0.6%)

0 (0%)

1 (1.1%)

divore

19 (11%)

11 (13%)

8 (9.2%)

in_relationship

4 (2.3%)

2 (2.3%)

2 (2.3%)

married

53 (30%)

25 (29%)

28 (32%)

none

84 (48%)

42 (48%)

42 (48%)

seperation

3 (1.7%)

2 (2.3%)

1 (1.1%)

widow

10 (5.7%)

5 (5.7%)

5 (5.7%)

edu

174

0.393

bachelor

40 (23%)

16 (18%)

24 (28%)

diploma

32 (18%)

21 (24%)

11 (13%)

hd_ad

5 (2.9%)

4 (4.6%)

1 (1.1%)

postgraduate

15 (8.6%)

8 (9.2%)

7 (8.0%)

primary

12 (6.9%)

5 (5.7%)

7 (8.0%)

secondary_1_3

19 (11%)

10 (11%)

9 (10%)

secondary_4_5

42 (24%)

19 (22%)

23 (26%)

secondary_6_7

9 (5.2%)

4 (4.6%)

5 (5.7%)

fam_income

174

0.713

10001_12000

6 (3.4%)

2 (2.3%)

4 (4.6%)

12001_14000

10 (5.7%)

4 (4.6%)

6 (6.9%)

14001_16000

8 (4.6%)

3 (3.4%)

5 (5.7%)

16001_18000

4 (2.3%)

2 (2.3%)

2 (2.3%)

18001_20000

8 (4.6%)

6 (6.9%)

2 (2.3%)

20001_above

33 (19%)

20 (23%)

13 (15%)

2001_4000

24 (14%)

13 (15%)

11 (13%)

4001_6000

19 (11%)

7 (8.0%)

12 (14%)

6001_8000

16 (9.2%)

9 (10%)

7 (8.0%)

8001_10000

14 (8.0%)

7 (8.0%)

7 (8.0%)

below_2000

32 (18%)

14 (16%)

18 (21%)

medication

174

155 (89%)

77 (89%)

78 (90%)

0.808

onset_duration

171

15.51 ± 10.39 (0 - 56)

16.00 ± 11.34 (0 - 56)

15.00 ± 9.35 (0 - 35)

0.533

Unknown

3

0

3

onset_age

169

35.40 ± 13.60 (10 - 65)

34.68 ± 12.42 (10 - 61)

36.12 ± 14.73 (14 - 65)

0.492

Unknown

5

2

3

1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)

2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 1741

control, N = 871

treatment, N = 871

p-value2

recovery_stage_a

174

3.10 ± 1.19 (1 - 5)

3.14 ± 1.23 (1 - 5)

3.07 ± 1.16 (1 - 5)

0.704

recovery_stage_b

174

17.82 ± 2.83 (8 - 24)

17.91 ± 2.88 (8 - 24)

17.72 ± 2.79 (9 - 24)

0.669

ras_confidence

174

29.74 ± 5.26 (14 - 45)

29.33 ± 5.14 (14 - 40)

30.14 ± 5.38 (18 - 45)

0.315

ras_willingness

174

11.79 ± 2.02 (5 - 15)

11.74 ± 2.02 (5 - 15)

11.85 ± 2.03 (7 - 15)

0.709

ras_goal

174

17.42 ± 3.12 (7 - 25)

17.17 ± 3.01 (7 - 24)

17.67 ± 3.22 (11 - 25)

0.297

ras_reliance

174

13.31 ± 2.89 (5 - 20)

13.08 ± 2.80 (5 - 18)

13.54 ± 2.97 (7 - 20)

0.295

ras_domination

174

9.76 ± 2.42 (3 - 15)

9.94 ± 2.49 (3 - 15)

9.59 ± 2.36 (3 - 15)

0.334

symptom

174

30.04 ± 9.17 (14 - 56)

30.28 ± 9.58 (14 - 55)

29.80 ± 8.78 (15 - 56)

0.736

slof_work

174

22.32 ± 4.76 (10 - 30)

22.52 ± 4.37 (12 - 30)

22.11 ± 5.14 (10 - 30)

0.579

slof_relationship

174

25.30 ± 5.90 (9 - 35)

24.97 ± 5.88 (9 - 35)

25.64 ± 5.93 (11 - 35)

0.450

satisfaction

174

20.33 ± 7.12 (5 - 35)

19.48 ± 6.96 (5 - 33)

21.18 ± 7.22 (5 - 35)

0.115

mhc_emotional

174

10.74 ± 3.76 (3 - 18)

10.47 ± 3.68 (3 - 17)

11.01 ± 3.83 (3 - 18)

0.345

mhc_social

174

14.98 ± 5.55 (5 - 30)

14.80 ± 5.54 (5 - 30)

15.16 ± 5.59 (5 - 29)

0.673

mhc_psychological

174

21.61 ± 6.46 (6 - 36)

21.34 ± 6.31 (7 - 36)

21.89 ± 6.62 (6 - 36)

0.582

resilisnce

174

16.32 ± 4.69 (6 - 30)

15.72 ± 4.25 (6 - 24)

16.91 ± 5.05 (6 - 30)

0.096

social_provision

174

13.52 ± 2.85 (5 - 20)

13.14 ± 2.67 (5 - 20)

13.90 ± 3.00 (5 - 20)

0.080

els_value_living

174

16.93 ± 3.17 (5 - 25)

16.64 ± 3.03 (6 - 22)

17.21 ± 3.30 (5 - 25)

0.243

els_life_fulfill

174

12.68 ± 3.38 (4 - 20)

12.20 ± 3.32 (5 - 19)

13.16 ± 3.39 (4 - 20)

0.059

els

174

29.60 ± 6.00 (9 - 45)

28.84 ± 5.75 (11 - 39)

30.37 ± 6.18 (9 - 45)

0.093

social_connect

174

26.63 ± 9.27 (8 - 48)

27.16 ± 8.93 (8 - 48)

26.10 ± 9.63 (8 - 48)

0.454

shs_agency

174

14.26 ± 5.11 (3 - 24)

13.72 ± 4.76 (3 - 21)

14.80 ± 5.41 (3 - 24)

0.164

shs_pathway

174

15.93 ± 4.18 (3 - 24)

15.37 ± 4.17 (3 - 24)

16.48 ± 4.14 (4 - 24)

0.078

shs

174

30.19 ± 8.90 (6 - 48)

29.09 ± 8.57 (6 - 45)

31.29 ± 9.14 (7 - 48)

0.104

esteem

174

12.62 ± 1.57 (9 - 20)

12.62 ± 1.61 (9 - 18)

12.62 ± 1.54 (10 - 20)

>0.999

mlq_search

174

14.87 ± 3.58 (3 - 21)

14.52 ± 3.59 (4 - 21)

15.23 ± 3.55 (3 - 21)

0.190

mlq_presence

174

13.33 ± 4.42 (3 - 21)

13.18 ± 4.15 (3 - 21)

13.47 ± 4.69 (3 - 21)

0.669

mlq

174

28.20 ± 7.12 (6 - 42)

27.70 ± 6.80 (7 - 40)

28.70 ± 7.43 (6 - 42)

0.356

empower

174

19.12 ± 4.33 (6 - 30)

18.69 ± 4.15 (9 - 30)

19.55 ± 4.48 (6 - 30)

0.189

ismi_resistance

174

14.40 ± 2.60 (5 - 20)

14.39 ± 2.34 (6 - 20)

14.40 ± 2.84 (5 - 20)

0.977

ismi_discrimation

174

11.66 ± 3.05 (5 - 20)

11.84 ± 2.88 (5 - 20)

11.48 ± 3.21 (5 - 20)

0.442

sss_affective

174

10.22 ± 3.63 (3 - 18)

10.15 ± 3.54 (3 - 18)

10.30 ± 3.73 (3 - 18)

0.787

sss_behavior

174

9.90 ± 3.75 (3 - 18)

9.98 ± 3.78 (3 - 18)

9.82 ± 3.75 (3 - 18)

0.778

sss_cognitive

174

8.43 ± 3.70 (3 - 18)

8.34 ± 3.60 (3 - 18)

8.51 ± 3.82 (3 - 18)

0.775

sss

174

28.55 ± 10.30 (9 - 54)

28.47 ± 10.12 (9 - 54)

28.62 ± 10.53 (9 - 54)

0.924

1Mean ± SD (Range)

2Two Sample t-test

Plot

## Warning: Removed 2 rows containing non-finite values (`stat_density()`).
## Warning: Removed 1 rows containing missing values (`geom_vline()`).

Data analysis

Table

Group

Characteristic

Beta

SE1

95% CI1

p-value

recovery_stage_a

(Intercept)

3.14

0.127

2.89, 3.39

group

control

treatment

-0.069

0.179

-0.421, 0.283

0.701

time_point

1st

2nd

0.149

0.185

-0.213, 0.511

0.421

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.308

0.265

-0.212, 0.828

0.248

Pseudo R square

0.018

recovery_stage_b

(Intercept)

17.9

0.309

17.3, 18.5

group

control

treatment

-0.184

0.437

-1.04, 0.673

0.675

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.197

0.400

-0.981, 0.586

0.622

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.750

0.574

-0.376, 1.88

0.195

Pseudo R square

0.005

ras_confidence

(Intercept)

29.3

0.565

28.2, 30.4

group

control

treatment

0.805

0.799

-0.762, 2.37

0.315

time_point

1st

2nd

1.05

0.571

-0.067, 2.17

0.069

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.737

0.822

-0.874, 2.35

0.373

Pseudo R square

0.026

ras_willingness

(Intercept)

11.7

0.216

11.3, 12.2

group

control

treatment

0.115

0.306

-0.485, 0.715

0.708

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.021

0.248

-0.506, 0.465

0.933

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.332

0.356

-0.366, 1.03

0.353

Pseudo R square

0.006

ras_goal

(Intercept)

17.2

0.338

16.5, 17.8

group

control

treatment

0.494

0.479

-0.444, 1.43

0.303

time_point

1st

2nd

0.218

0.390

-0.546, 0.982

0.577

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.533

0.561

-0.566, 1.63

0.344

Pseudo R square

0.017

ras_reliance

(Intercept)

13.1

0.311

12.5, 13.7

group

control

treatment

0.460

0.439

-0.401, 1.32

0.297

time_point

1st

2nd

0.377

0.341

-0.291, 1.04

0.271

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.352

0.490

-0.608, 1.31

0.474

Pseudo R square

0.018

ras_domination

(Intercept)

9.94

0.255

9.44, 10.4

group

control

treatment

-0.356

0.360

-1.06, 0.350

0.324

time_point

1st

2nd

0.028

0.327

-0.613, 0.669

0.932

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.14

0.470

0.217, 2.06

0.017

Pseudo R square

0.025

symptom

(Intercept)

30.3

0.977

28.4, 32.2

group

control

treatment

-0.471

1.381

-3.18, 2.24

0.733

time_point

1st

2nd

-1.53

0.850

-3.20, 0.136

0.075

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.085

1.223

-2.48, 2.31

0.945

Pseudo R square

0.007

slof_work

(Intercept)

22.5

0.507

21.5, 23.5

group

control

treatment

-0.402

0.716

-1.81, 1.00

0.575

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.042

0.529

-1.08, 0.994

0.937

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.159

0.760

-1.33, 1.65

0.835

Pseudo R square

0.001

slof_relationship

(Intercept)

25.0

0.627

23.7, 26.2

group

control

treatment

0.678

0.887

-1.06, 2.42

0.445

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.097

0.701

-1.47, 1.28

0.890

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.376

1.008

-1.60, 2.35

0.710

Pseudo R square

0.005

satisfaction

(Intercept)

19.5

0.761

18.0, 21.0

group

control

treatment

1.70

1.076

-0.408, 3.81

0.116

time_point

1st

2nd

0.728

0.732

-0.708, 2.16

0.323

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.832

1.054

-1.23, 2.90

0.432

Pseudo R square

0.025

mhc_emotional

(Intercept)

10.5

0.402

9.68, 11.3

group

control

treatment

0.540

0.569

-0.575, 1.66

0.344

time_point

1st

2nd

0.510

0.380

-0.234, 1.25

0.182

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.468

0.546

-1.54, 0.603

0.394

Pseudo R square

0.005

mhc_social

(Intercept)

14.8

0.620

13.6, 16.0

group

control

treatment

0.356

0.877

-1.36, 2.08

0.685

time_point

1st

2nd

0.981

0.683

-0.357, 2.32

0.154

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.419

0.982

-2.34, 1.51

0.671

Pseudo R square

0.005

mhc_psychological

(Intercept)

21.3

0.712

19.9, 22.7

group

control

treatment

0.540

1.007

-1.43, 2.51

0.592

time_point

1st

2nd

1.11

0.752

-0.363, 2.59

0.143

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.451

1.082

-2.57, 1.67

0.678

Pseudo R square

0.005

resilisnce

(Intercept)

15.7

0.486

14.8, 16.7

group

control

treatment

1.18

0.688

-0.164, 2.53

0.087

time_point

1st

2nd

0.871

0.589

-0.283, 2.03

0.142

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.468

0.847

-1.19, 2.13

0.581

Pseudo R square

0.033

social_provision

(Intercept)

13.1

0.307

12.5, 13.7

group

control

treatment

0.759

0.434

-0.093, 1.61

0.082

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.350

0.355

-1.05, 0.345

0.326

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.515

0.510

-0.485, 1.51

0.315

Pseudo R square

0.027

els_value_living

(Intercept)

16.6

0.342

16.0, 17.3

group

control

treatment

0.563

0.483

-0.384, 1.51

0.245

time_point

1st

2nd

0.230

0.361

-0.477, 0.938

0.525

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.381

0.519

-0.637, 1.40

0.465

Pseudo R square

0.016

els_life_fulfill

(Intercept)

12.2

0.351

11.5, 12.9

group

control

treatment

0.966

0.496

-0.007, 1.94

0.053

time_point

1st

2nd

0.387

0.342

-0.283, 1.06

0.260

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.091

0.492

-0.872, 1.06

0.853

Pseudo R square

0.026

els

(Intercept)

28.8

0.638

27.6, 30.1

group

control

treatment

1.53

0.902

-0.239, 3.30

0.092

time_point

1st

2nd

0.635

0.588

-0.518, 1.79

0.283

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.376

0.847

-1.28, 2.03

0.658

Pseudo R square

0.023

social_connect

(Intercept)

27.2

0.999

25.2, 29.1

group

control

treatment

-1.06

1.413

-3.83, 1.71

0.455

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.052

0.973

-1.96, 1.85

0.958

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-2.07

1.399

-4.82, 0.668

0.142

Pseudo R square

0.014

shs_agency

(Intercept)

13.7

0.542

12.7, 14.8

group

control

treatment

1.08

0.767

-0.422, 2.58

0.160

time_point

1st

2nd

0.386

0.516

-0.625, 1.40

0.456

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.444

0.742

-1.01, 1.90

0.551

Pseudo R square

0.018

shs_pathway

(Intercept)

15.4

0.437

14.5, 16.2

group

control

treatment

1.11

0.618

-0.097, 2.33

0.073

time_point

1st

2nd

0.604

0.433

-0.245, 1.45

0.167

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.411

0.623

-1.63, 0.810

0.511

Pseudo R square

0.017

shs

(Intercept)

29.1

0.935

27.3, 30.9

group

control

treatment

2.20

1.322

-0.397, 4.79

0.099

time_point

1st

2nd

0.979

0.882

-0.748, 2.71

0.270

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.021

1.268

-2.46, 2.51

0.987

Pseudo R square

0.018

esteem

(Intercept)

12.6

0.165

12.3, 12.9

group

control

treatment

0.000

0.233

-0.457, 0.457

1.00

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.125

0.235

-0.586, 0.336

0.596

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.289

0.338

-0.373, 0.951

0.393

Pseudo R square

0.003

mlq_search

(Intercept)

14.5

0.376

13.8, 15.3

group

control

treatment

0.713

0.531

-0.328, 1.75

0.181

time_point

1st

2nd

0.785

0.456

-0.109, 1.68

0.088

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.810

0.656

-2.10, 0.476

0.220

Pseudo R square

0.010

mlq_presence

(Intercept)

13.2

0.464

12.3, 14.1

group

control

treatment

0.287

0.657

-1.00, 1.57

0.662

time_point

1st

2nd

0.737

0.515

-0.272, 1.75

0.156

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.006

0.741

-1.45, 1.46

0.993

Pseudo R square

0.007

mlq

(Intercept)

27.7

0.754

26.2, 29.2

group

control

treatment

1.00

1.066

-1.09, 3.09

0.349

time_point

1st

2nd

1.52

0.858

-0.163, 3.20

0.080

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.776

1.234

-3.19, 1.64

0.531

Pseudo R square

0.009

empower

(Intercept)

18.7

0.460

17.8, 19.6

group

control

treatment

0.862

0.651

-0.414, 2.14

0.187

time_point

1st

2nd

1.06

0.482

0.114, 2.00

0.031

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.27

0.694

-2.63, 0.090

0.070

Pseudo R square

0.010

ismi_resistance

(Intercept)

14.4

0.269

13.9, 14.9

group

control

treatment

0.011

0.380

-0.734, 0.757

0.976

time_point

1st

2nd

0.110

0.345

-0.566, 0.786

0.751

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.584

0.496

-0.387, 1.56

0.241

Pseudo R square

0.010

ismi_discrimation

(Intercept)

11.8

0.331

11.2, 12.5

group

control

treatment

-0.356

0.469

-1.27, 0.562

0.448

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.064

0.446

-0.937, 0.810

0.887

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.828

0.640

-2.08, 0.426

0.198

Pseudo R square

0.019

sss_affective

(Intercept)

10.1

0.390

9.38, 10.9

group

control

treatment

0.149

0.552

-0.932, 1.23

0.787

time_point

1st

2nd

0.035

0.386

-0.722, 0.793

0.927

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.22

0.556

-2.31, -0.133

0.030

Pseudo R square

0.012

sss_behavior

(Intercept)

9.98

0.399

9.20, 10.8

group

control

treatment

-0.161

0.564

-1.27, 0.944

0.776

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.201

0.398

-0.981, 0.580

0.616

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.540

0.573

-1.66, 0.583

0.348

Pseudo R square

0.006

sss_cognitive

(Intercept)

8.34

0.391

7.58, 9.11

group

control

treatment

0.161

0.553

-0.922, 1.24

0.771

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.039

0.420

-0.863, 0.784

0.926

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.790

0.604

-1.97, 0.395

0.194

Pseudo R square

0.006

sss

(Intercept)

28.5

1.100

26.3, 30.6

group

control

treatment

0.149

1.556

-2.90, 3.20

0.924

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.265

1.002

-2.23, 1.70

0.792

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-2.33

1.442

-5.16, 0.494

0.109

Pseudo R square

0.008

1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.39) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.14 (95% CI [2.89, 3.39], t(251) = 24.73, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.28], t(251) = -0.38, p = 0.701; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.24])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.51], t(251) = 0.81, p = 0.419; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.43])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.83], t(251) = 1.16, p = 0.246; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.70])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.53) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.52e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.91 (95% CI [17.30, 18.51], t(251) = 57.89, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-1.04, 0.67], t(251) = -0.42, p = 0.674; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.23])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.98, 0.59], t(251) = -0.49, p = 0.621; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.20])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.75, 95% CI [-0.38, 1.88], t(251) = 1.31, p = 0.192; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.65])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.33 (95% CI [28.23, 30.44], t(251) = 51.91, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.80, 95% CI [-0.76, 2.37], t(251) = 1.01, p = 0.314; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.45])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.05, 95% CI [-0.07, 2.17], t(251) = 1.84, p = 0.065; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.41])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [-0.87, 2.35], t(251) = 0.90, p = 0.370; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.44])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.51e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.74 (95% CI [11.31, 12.16], t(251) = 54.22, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.71], t(251) = 0.38, p = 0.707; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.36])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.46], t(251) = -0.08, p = 0.933; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.23])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.37, 1.03], t(251) = 0.93, p = 0.351; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.51])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.17 (95% CI [16.51, 17.84], t(251) = 50.74, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-0.44, 1.43], t(251) = 1.03, p = 0.302; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.45])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.98], t(251) = 0.56, p = 0.576; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.31])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.57, 1.63], t(251) = 0.95, p = 0.342; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.51])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.08 (95% CI [12.47, 13.69], t(251) = 42.11, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-0.40, 1.32], t(251) = 1.05, p = 0.295; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.45])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.29, 1.04], t(251) = 1.11, p = 0.269; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.36])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.61, 1.31], t(251) = 0.72, p = 0.473; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.45])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.55) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.94 (95% CI [9.44, 10.44], t(251) = 39.02, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-1.06, 0.35], t(251) = -0.99, p = 0.323; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.15])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.67], t(251) = 0.09, p = 0.932; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.28])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.14, 95% CI [0.22, 2.06], t(251) = 2.42, p = 0.015; Std. beta = 0.48, 95% CI [0.09, 0.87])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.16e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 30.28 (95% CI [28.36, 32.19], t(251) = 30.99, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-3.18, 2.24], t(251) = -0.34, p = 0.733; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.24])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.53, 95% CI [-3.20, 0.14], t(251) = -1.80, p = 0.072; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.01])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-2.48, 2.31], t(251) = -0.07, p = 0.944; Std. beta = -9.24e-03, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.25])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.46e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.52 (95% CI [21.52, 23.51], t(251) = 44.45, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.40, 95% CI [-1.81, 1.00], t(251) = -0.56, p = 0.574; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.21])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-1.08, 0.99], t(251) = -0.08, p = 0.936; Std. beta = -8.95e-03, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.21])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-1.33, 1.65], t(251) = 0.21, p = 0.835; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.35])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.92e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.97 (95% CI [23.74, 26.19], t(251) = 39.82, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.68, 95% CI [-1.06, 2.42], t(251) = 0.76, p = 0.444; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.41])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-1.47, 1.28], t(251) = -0.14, p = 0.890; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.22])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-1.60, 2.35], t(251) = 0.37, p = 0.710; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.40])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.48 (95% CI [17.99, 20.97], t(251) = 25.61, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.70, 95% CI [-0.41, 3.81], t(251) = 1.58, p = 0.114; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.53])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.73, 95% CI [-0.71, 2.16], t(251) = 0.99, p = 0.320; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.30])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.83, 95% CI [-1.23, 2.90], t(251) = 0.79, p = 0.430; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.41])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.70e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.47 (95% CI [9.68, 11.26], t(251) = 26.02, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-0.58, 1.66], t(251) = 0.95, p = 0.342; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.44])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-0.23, 1.25], t(251) = 1.34, p = 0.179; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.33])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-1.54, 0.60], t(251) = -0.86, p = 0.391; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.16])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.55e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.80 (95% CI [13.59, 16.02], t(251) = 23.86, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-1.36, 2.08], t(251) = 0.41, p = 0.685; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.36])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.98, 95% CI [-0.36, 2.32], t(251) = 1.44, p = 0.151; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.40])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-2.34, 1.51], t(251) = -0.43, p = 0.670; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.26])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.00e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.34 (95% CI [19.95, 22.74], t(251) = 29.97, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-1.43, 2.51], t(251) = 0.54, p = 0.592; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.38])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.11, 95% CI [-0.36, 2.59], t(251) = 1.48, p = 0.140; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.39])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.45, 95% CI [-2.57, 1.67], t(251) = -0.42, p = 0.677; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.25])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.61) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.72 (95% CI [14.77, 16.68], t(251) = 32.33, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.18, 95% CI [-0.16, 2.53], t(251) = 1.72, p = 0.085; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.55])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.87, 95% CI [-0.28, 2.03], t(251) = 1.48, p = 0.139; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.44])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-1.19, 2.13], t(251) = 0.55, p = 0.580; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.46])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.14 (95% CI [12.54, 13.74], t(251) = 42.76, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-0.09, 1.61], t(251) = 1.75, p = 0.081; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.55])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-1.05, 0.35], t(251) = -0.99, p = 0.324; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.12])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-0.49, 1.51], t(251) = 1.01, p = 0.313; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.52])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.64 (95% CI [15.97, 17.31], t(251) = 48.69, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.56, 95% CI [-0.38, 1.51], t(251) = 1.17, p = 0.244; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.47])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.94], t(251) = 0.64, p = 0.523; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.29])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.64, 1.40], t(251) = 0.73, p = 0.463; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.44])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.20 (95% CI [11.51, 12.88], t(251) = 34.75, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.97, 95% CI [-7.29e-03, 1.94], t(251) = 1.95, p = 0.052; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-2.21e-03, 0.59])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.28, 1.06], t(251) = 1.13, p = 0.257; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.32])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.87, 1.06], t(251) = 0.19, p = 0.852; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.32])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.84 (95% CI [27.59, 30.09], t(251) = 45.21, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.53, 95% CI [-0.24, 3.30], t(251) = 1.69, p = 0.090; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.55])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.63, 95% CI [-0.52, 1.79], t(251) = 1.08, p = 0.280; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.30])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-1.28, 2.03], t(251) = 0.44, p = 0.657; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.34])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.16 (95% CI [25.20, 29.12], t(251) = 27.19, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.06, 95% CI [-3.83, 1.71], t(251) = -0.75, p = 0.454; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.18])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-1.96, 1.85], t(251) = -0.05, p = 0.958; Std. beta = -5.51e-03, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.20])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.07, 95% CI [-4.82, 0.67], t(251) = -1.48, p = 0.138; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.07])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.72 (95% CI [12.66, 14.79], t(251) = 25.32, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.08, 95% CI [-0.42, 2.58], t(251) = 1.41, p = 0.159; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.51])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.62, 1.40], t(251) = 0.75, p = 0.454; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.28])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-1.01, 1.90], t(251) = 0.60, p = 0.550; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.38])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.37 (95% CI [14.51, 16.22], t(251) = 35.15, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.11, 95% CI [-0.10, 2.33], t(251) = 1.80, p = 0.071; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.57])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.60, 95% CI [-0.24, 1.45], t(251) = 1.39, p = 0.163; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.36])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-1.63, 0.81], t(251) = -0.66, p = 0.509; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.20])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.09 (95% CI [27.26, 30.92], t(251) = 31.11, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.20, 95% CI [-0.40, 4.79], t(251) = 1.66, p = 0.097; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.55])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.98, 95% CI [-0.75, 2.71], t(251) = 1.11, p = 0.267; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.31])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-2.46, 2.51], t(251) = 0.02, p = 0.987; Std. beta = 2.44e-03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.29])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.41) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.87e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.62 (95% CI [12.30, 12.94], t(251) = 76.47, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 9.65e-14, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.46], t(251) = 4.13e-13, p > .999; Std. beta = 5.00e-17, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.30])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.34], t(251) = -0.53, p = 0.595; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.22])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.95], t(251) = 0.86, p = 0.392; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.62])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.60) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.61e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.52 (95% CI [13.78, 15.25], t(251) = 38.65, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.71, 95% CI [-0.33, 1.75], t(251) = 1.34, p = 0.180; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.50])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.78, 95% CI [-0.11, 1.68], t(251) = 1.72, p = 0.085; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.48])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.81, 95% CI [-2.10, 0.48], t(251) = -1.23, p = 0.217; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.14])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.38e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.18 (95% CI [12.27, 14.09], t(251) = 28.40, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-1.00, 1.57], t(251) = 0.44, p = 0.662; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.37])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [-0.27, 1.75], t(251) = 1.43, p = 0.152; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.41])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 6.19e-03, 95% CI [-1.45, 1.46], t(251) = 8.36e-03, p = 0.993; Std. beta = 1.44e-03, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.34])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.06e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.70 (95% CI [26.22, 29.18], t(251) = 36.75, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.00, 95% CI [-1.09, 3.09], t(251) = 0.94, p = 0.348; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.44])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.52, 95% CI [-0.16, 3.20], t(251) = 1.77, p = 0.077; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.45])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.78, 95% CI [-3.19, 1.64], t(251) = -0.63, p = 0.529; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.23])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.71e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.69 (95% CI [17.79, 19.59], t(251) = 40.60, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.86, 95% CI [-0.41, 2.14], t(251) = 1.32, p = 0.185; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.50])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.06, 95% CI [0.11, 2.00], t(251) = 2.20, p = 0.028; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [0.03, 0.47])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.27, 95% CI [-2.63, 0.09], t(251) = -1.83, p = 0.067; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.02])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.54) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.81e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.39 (95% CI [13.86, 14.92], t(251) = 53.51, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.73, 0.76], t(251) = 0.03, p = 0.976; Std. beta = 4.56e-03, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.30])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.79], t(251) = 0.32, p = 0.751; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.31])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.58, 95% CI [-0.39, 1.56], t(251) = 1.18, p = 0.238; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.62])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.50) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.84 (95% CI [11.19, 12.49], t(251) = 35.73, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-1.27, 0.56], t(251) = -0.76, p = 0.447; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.18])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.94, 0.81], t(251) = -0.14, p = 0.886; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.26])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.83, 95% CI [-2.08, 0.43], t(251) = -1.29, p = 0.196; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.14])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.15 (95% CI [9.38, 10.91], t(251) = 26.00, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.93, 1.23], t(251) = 0.27, p = 0.787; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.34])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.79], t(251) = 0.09, p = 0.927; Std. beta = 9.63e-03, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.22])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.22, 95% CI [-2.31, -0.13], t(251) = -2.20, p = 0.028; Std. beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-0.63, -0.04])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.49e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.98 (95% CI [9.20, 10.76], t(251) = 25.03, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-1.27, 0.94], t(251) = -0.29, p = 0.775; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.25])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.98, 0.58], t(251) = -0.50, p = 0.615; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.16])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.54, 95% CI [-1.66, 0.58], t(251) = -0.94, p = 0.346; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.16])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.66e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.34 (95% CI [7.58, 9.11], t(251) = 21.35, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.92, 1.24], t(251) = 0.29, p = 0.771; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.34])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.86, 0.78], t(251) = -0.09, p = 0.926; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.21])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.79, 95% CI [-1.97, 0.39], t(251) = -1.31, p = 0.191; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.11])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.67e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.47 (95% CI [26.32, 30.63], t(251) = 25.88, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-2.90, 3.20], t(251) = 0.10, p = 0.923; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.31])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-2.23, 1.70], t(251) = -0.26, p = 0.792; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.16])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.33, 95% CI [-5.16, 0.49], t(251) = -1.62, p = 0.106; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.05])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome

model

npar

AIC

BIC

logLik

deviance

Chisq

Df

p

recovery_stage_a

null

3

811.384

822.031

-402.692

805.384

recovery_stage_a

random

6

811.057

832.351

-399.528

799.057

6.327

3

0.097

recovery_stage_b

null

3

1,250.381

1,261.028

-622.191

1,244.381

recovery_stage_b

random

6

1,254.316

1,275.611

-621.158

1,242.316

2.065

3

0.559

ras_confidence

null

3

1,536.588

1,547.236

-765.294

1,530.588

ras_confidence

random

6

1,528.781

1,550.076

-758.391

1,516.781

13.807

3

0.003

ras_willingness

null

3

1,049.793

1,060.440

-521.896

1,043.793

ras_willingness

random

6

1,053.828

1,075.122

-520.914

1,041.828

1.965

3

0.580

ras_goal

null

3

1,284.265

1,294.912

-639.132

1,278.265

ras_goal

random

6

1,284.569

1,305.863

-636.284

1,272.569

5.696

3

0.127

ras_reliance

null

3

1,234.500

1,245.148

-614.250

1,228.500

ras_reliance

random

6

1,233.369

1,254.663

-610.684

1,221.369

7.132

3

0.068

ras_domination

null

3

1,159.396

1,170.043

-576.698

1,153.396

ras_domination

random

6

1,153.771

1,175.066

-570.886

1,141.771

11.624

3

0.009

symptom

null

3

1,787.597

1,798.244

-890.798

1,781.597

symptom

random

6

1,787.009

1,808.303

-887.504

1,775.009

6.588

3

0.086

slof_work

null

3

1,471.721

1,482.368

-732.861

1,465.721

slof_work

random

6

1,477.390

1,498.684

-732.695

1,465.390

0.331

3

0.954

slof_relationship

null

3

1,592.229

1,602.876

-793.114

1,586.229

slof_relationship

random

6

1,597.215

1,618.509

-792.607

1,585.215

1.014

3

0.798

satisfaction

null

3

1,676.736

1,687.383

-835.368

1,670.736

satisfaction

random

6

1,674.215

1,695.510

-831.108

1,662.215

8.521

3

0.036

mhc_emotional

null

3

1,340.153

1,350.801

-667.077

1,334.153

mhc_emotional

random

6

1,343.738

1,365.033

-665.869

1,331.738

2.415

3

0.491

mhc_social

null

3

1,586.258

1,596.905

-790.129

1,580.258

mhc_social

random

6

1,589.461

1,610.756

-788.731

1,577.461

2.797

3

0.424

mhc_psychological

null

3

1,651.433

1,662.080

-822.716

1,645.433

mhc_psychological

random

6

1,654.331

1,675.625

-821.165

1,642.331

3.102

3

0.376

resilisnce

null

3

1,482.989

1,493.637

-738.495

1,476.989

resilisnce

random

6

1,478.083

1,499.378

-733.042

1,466.083

10.906

3

0.012

social_provision

null

3

1,235.083

1,245.730

-614.541

1,229.083

social_provision

random

6

1,235.228

1,256.522

-611.614

1,223.228

5.855

3

0.119

els_value_living

null

3

1,276.025

1,286.672

-635.012

1,270.025

els_value_living

random

6

1,276.938

1,298.233

-632.469

1,264.938

5.086

3

0.166

els_life_fulfill

null

3

1,279.554

1,290.201

-636.777

1,273.554

els_life_fulfill

random

6

1,278.262

1,299.556

-633.131

1,266.262

7.292

3

0.063

els

null

3

1,578.315

1,588.962

-786.157

1,572.315

els

random

6

1,577.014

1,598.309

-782.507

1,565.014

7.300

3

0.063

social_connect

null

3

1,815.655

1,826.302

-904.827

1,809.655

social_connect

random

6

1,815.842

1,837.136

-901.921

1,803.842

5.813

3

0.121

shs_agency

null

3

1,497.628

1,508.275

-745.814

1,491.628

shs_agency

random

6

1,498.084

1,519.379

-743.042

1,486.084

5.543

3

0.136

shs_pathway

null

3

1,392.841

1,403.488

-693.420

1,386.841

shs_pathway

random

6

1,393.875

1,415.169

-690.937

1,381.875

4.966

3

0.174

shs

null

3

1,776.373

1,787.020

-885.187

1,770.373

shs

random

6

1,777.014

1,798.309

-882.507

1,765.014

5.359

3

0.147

esteem

null

3

938.627

949.274

-466.313

932.627

esteem

random

6

943.742

965.036

-465.871

931.742

0.885

3

0.829

mlq_search

null

3

1,343.576

1,354.223

-668.788

1,337.576

mlq_search

random

6

1,345.631

1,366.925

-666.815

1,333.631

3.945

3

0.267

mlq_presence

null

3

1,439.769

1,450.416

-716.885

1,433.769

mlq_presence

random

6

1,441.563

1,462.858

-714.782

1,429.563

4.206

3

0.240

mlq

null

3

1,692.853

1,703.501

-843.427

1,686.853

mlq

random

6

1,694.422

1,715.716

-841.211

1,682.422

4.432

3

0.218

empower

null

3

1,428.478

1,439.125

-711.239

1,422.478

empower

random

6

1,428.779

1,450.073

-708.389

1,416.779

5.699

3

0.127

ismi_resistance

null

3

1,179.511

1,190.158

-586.755

1,173.511

ismi_resistance

random

6

1,181.397

1,202.691

-584.698

1,169.397

4.114

3

0.249

ismi_discrimation

null

3

1,294.335

1,304.982

-644.167

1,288.335

ismi_discrimation

random

6

1,294.857

1,316.152

-641.429

1,282.857

5.478

3

0.140

sss_affective

null

3

1,338.302

1,348.950

-666.151

1,332.302

sss_affective

random

6

1,335.430

1,356.724

-661.715

1,323.430

8.873

3

0.031

sss_behavior

null

3

1,345.392

1,356.039

-669.696

1,339.392

sss_behavior

random

6

1,347.585

1,368.879

-667.792

1,335.585

3.807

3

0.283

sss_cognitive

null

3

1,346.171

1,356.818

-670.086

1,340.171

sss_cognitive

random

6

1,348.488

1,369.783

-668.244

1,336.488

3.683

3

0.298

sss

null

3

1,855.652

1,866.299

-924.826

1,849.652

sss

random

6

1,855.215

1,876.510

-921.608

1,843.215

6.436

3

0.092

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome

time

control

treatment

between

n

estimate

within es

n

estimate

within es

p

es

recovery_stage_a

1st

87

3.14 ± 1.18

87

3.07 ± 1.18

0.701

0.074

recovery_stage_a

2nd

43

3.29 ± 1.15

-0.160

40

3.53 ± 1.14

-0.490

0.343

-0.256

recovery_stage_b

1st

87

17.91 ± 2.89

87

17.72 ± 2.89

0.675

0.093

recovery_stage_b

2nd

43

17.71 ± 2.68

0.100

40

18.28 ± 2.67

-0.280

0.336

-0.287

ras_confidence

1st

87

29.33 ± 5.27

87

30.14 ± 5.27

0.315

-0.293

ras_confidence

2nd

43

30.39 ± 4.51

-0.383

40

31.93 ± 4.46

-0.652

0.119

-0.561

ras_willingness

1st

87

11.74 ± 2.02

87

11.85 ± 2.02

0.708

-0.095

ras_willingness

2nd

43

11.71 ± 1.80

0.017

40

12.16 ± 1.78

-0.259

0.257

-0.371

ras_goal

1st

87

17.17 ± 3.16

87

17.67 ± 3.16

0.303

-0.261

ras_goal

2nd

43

17.39 ± 2.82

-0.115

40

18.42 ± 2.79

-0.396

0.097

-0.542

ras_reliance

1st

87

13.08 ± 2.90

87

13.54 ± 2.90

0.297

-0.279

ras_reliance

2nd

43

13.46 ± 2.55

-0.229

40

14.27 ± 2.52

-0.442

0.146

-0.492

ras_domination

1st

87

9.94 ± 2.38

87

9.59 ± 2.38

0.324

0.221

ras_domination

2nd

43

9.97 ± 2.20

-0.017

40

10.75 ± 2.19

-0.723

0.106

-0.484

symptom

1st

87

30.28 ± 9.11

87

29.80 ± 9.11

0.733

0.117

symptom

2nd

43

28.75 ± 7.49

0.379

40

28.19 ± 7.36

0.400

0.733

0.138

slof_work

1st

87

22.52 ± 4.73

87

22.11 ± 4.73

0.575

0.158

slof_work

2nd

43

22.48 ± 4.09

0.017

40

22.23 ± 4.04

-0.046

0.785

0.096

slof_relationship

1st

87

24.97 ± 5.85

87

25.64 ± 5.85

0.445

-0.199

slof_relationship

2nd

43

24.87 ± 5.17

0.029

40

25.92 ± 5.12

-0.082

0.352

-0.310

satisfaction

1st

87

19.48 ± 7.10

87

21.18 ± 7.10

0.115

-0.485

satisfaction

2nd

43

20.21 ± 5.99

-0.208

40

22.74 ± 5.91

-0.445

0.054

-0.722

mhc_emotional

1st

87

10.47 ± 3.75

87

11.01 ± 3.75

0.344

-0.298

mhc_emotional

2nd

43

10.98 ± 3.15

-0.281

40

11.05 ± 3.11

-0.023

0.917

-0.040

mhc_social

1st

87

14.80 ± 5.79

87

15.16 ± 5.79

0.685

-0.108

mhc_social

2nd

43

15.79 ± 5.09

-0.297

40

15.72 ± 5.04

-0.170

0.955

0.019

mhc_psychological

1st

87

21.34 ± 6.64

87

21.89 ± 6.64

0.592

-0.149

mhc_psychological

2nd

43

22.46 ± 5.77

-0.306

40

22.55 ± 5.70

-0.182

0.943

-0.025

resilisnce

1st

87

15.72 ± 4.54

87

16.91 ± 4.54

0.087

-0.411

resilisnce

2nd

43

16.60 ± 4.12

-0.302

40

18.25 ± 4.09

-0.465

0.068

-0.573

social_provision

1st

87

13.14 ± 2.87

87

13.90 ± 2.87

0.082

-0.439

social_provision

2nd

43

12.79 ± 2.56

0.203

40

14.06 ± 2.54

-0.095

0.024

-0.738

els_value_living

1st

87

16.64 ± 3.19

87

17.21 ± 3.19

0.245

-0.324

els_value_living

2nd

43

16.87 ± 2.77

-0.132

40

17.82 ± 2.74

-0.351

0.119

-0.542

els_life_fulfill

1st

87

12.20 ± 3.27

87

13.16 ± 3.27

0.053

-0.590

els_life_fulfill

2nd

43

12.58 ± 2.77

-0.236

40

13.64 ± 2.74

-0.292

0.082

-0.646

els

1st

87

28.84 ± 5.95

87

30.37 ± 5.95

0.092

-0.544

els

2nd

43

29.47 ± 4.96

-0.226

40

31.38 ± 4.89

-0.360

0.080

-0.678

social_connect

1st

87

27.16 ± 9.32

87

26.10 ± 9.32

0.455

0.227

social_connect

2nd

43

27.11 ± 7.89

0.011

40

23.98 ± 7.79

0.456

0.070

0.672

shs_agency

1st

87

13.72 ± 5.06

87

14.80 ± 5.06

0.160

-0.438

shs_agency

2nd

43

14.11 ± 4.25

-0.156

40

15.63 ± 4.19

-0.336

0.102

-0.618

shs_pathway

1st

87

15.37 ± 4.08

87

16.48 ± 4.08

0.073

-0.536

shs_pathway

2nd

43

15.97 ± 3.47

-0.291

40

16.68 ± 3.43

-0.093

0.354

-0.338

shs

1st

87

29.09 ± 8.72

87

31.29 ± 8.72

0.099

-0.521

shs

2nd

43

30.07 ± 7.32

-0.232

40

32.29 ± 7.22

-0.237

0.166

-0.526

esteem

1st

87

12.62 ± 1.54

87

12.62 ± 1.54

1.000

0.000

esteem

2nd

43

12.50 ± 1.48

0.106

40

12.78 ± 1.47

-0.139

0.374

-0.245

mlq_search

1st

87

14.52 ± 3.50

87

15.23 ± 3.50

0.181

-0.319

mlq_search

2nd

43

15.30 ± 3.18

-0.351

40

15.21 ± 3.16

0.011

0.890

0.043

mlq_presence

1st

87

13.18 ± 4.33

87

13.47 ± 4.33

0.662

-0.115

mlq_presence

2nd

43

13.92 ± 3.82

-0.295

40

14.21 ± 3.78

-0.298

0.725

-0.118

mlq

1st

87

27.70 ± 7.03

87

28.70 ± 7.03

0.349

-0.240

mlq

2nd

43

29.22 ± 6.25

-0.364

40

29.44 ± 6.20

-0.178

0.870

-0.054

empower

1st

87

18.69 ± 4.29

87

19.55 ± 4.29

0.187

-0.371

empower

2nd

43

19.75 ± 3.72

-0.456

40

19.34 ± 3.68

0.090

0.616

0.175

ismi_resistance

1st

87

14.39 ± 2.51

87

14.40 ± 2.51

0.976

-0.007

ismi_resistance

2nd

43

14.50 ± 2.32

-0.064

40

15.10 ± 2.31

-0.408

0.243

-0.350

ismi_discrimation

1st

87

11.84 ± 3.09

87

11.48 ± 3.09

0.448

0.161

ismi_discrimation

2nd

43

11.78 ± 2.91

0.029

40

10.59 ± 2.90

0.403

0.065

0.535

sss_affective

1st

87

10.15 ± 3.64

87

10.30 ± 3.64

0.787

-0.081

sss_affective

2nd

43

10.18 ± 3.10

-0.019

40

9.11 ± 3.06

0.641

0.114

0.579

sss_behavior

1st

87

9.98 ± 3.72

87

9.82 ± 3.72

0.776

0.084

sss_behavior

2nd

43

9.78 ± 3.17

0.105

40

9.08 ± 3.13

0.388

0.312

0.367

sss_cognitive

1st

87

8.34 ± 3.65

87

8.51 ± 3.65

0.771

-0.079

sss_cognitive

2nd

43

8.31 ± 3.18

0.019

40

7.68 ± 3.15

0.408

0.366

0.310

sss

1st

87

28.47 ± 10.26

87

28.62 ± 10.26

0.924

-0.031

sss

2nd

43

28.21 ± 8.53

0.055

40

26.02 ± 8.40

0.543

0.242

0.457

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(232.75) = -0.38, p = 0.701, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-0.42 to 0.28)

2st

t(247.29) = 0.95, p = 0.343, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.26 to 0.73)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(217.26) = -0.42, p = 0.675, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-1.05 to 0.68)

2st

t(247.23) = 0.96, p = 0.336, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.59 to 1.72)

ras_confidence

1st

t(196.81) = 1.01, p = 0.315, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.77 to 2.38)

2st

t(252.72) = 1.56, p = 0.119, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-0.40 to 3.48)

ras_willingness

1st

t(205.45) = 0.38, p = 0.708, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.49 to 0.72)

2st

t(250.15) = 1.14, p = 0.257, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.33 to 1.22)

ras_goal

1st

t(206.03) = 1.03, p = 0.303, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.45 to 1.44)

2st

t(249.96) = 1.67, p = 0.097, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-0.19 to 2.24)

ras_reliance

1st

t(202.18) = 1.05, p = 0.297, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.41 to 1.33)

2st

t(251.23) = 1.46, p = 0.146, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.28 to 1.91)

ras_domination

1st

t(216.50) = -0.99, p = 0.324, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-1.07 to 0.35)

2st

t(247.35) = 1.62, p = 0.106, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.17 to 1.73)

symptom

1st

t(189.47) = -0.34, p = 0.733, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-3.20 to 2.25)

2st

t(251.71) = -0.34, p = 0.733, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-3.77 to 2.65)

slof_work

1st

t(198.74) = -0.56, p = 0.575, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-1.82 to 1.01)

2st

t(252.28) = -0.27, p = 0.785, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-2.00 to 1.51)

slof_relationship

1st

t(203.65) = 0.76, p = 0.445, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-1.07 to 2.43)

2st

t(250.75) = 0.93, p = 0.352, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-1.17 to 3.28)

satisfaction

1st

t(194.09) = 1.58, p = 0.115, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.42 to 3.82)

2st

t(253.00) = 1.94, p = 0.054, Cohen d = -0.72, 95% CI (-0.04 to 5.11)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(193.09) = 0.95, p = 0.344, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.58 to 1.66)

2st

t(252.95) = 0.10, p = 0.917, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-1.28 to 1.43)

mhc_social

1st

t(202.40) = 0.41, p = 0.685, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.37 to 2.09)

2st

t(251.16) = -0.06, p = 0.955, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-2.25 to 2.13)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(199.55) = 0.54, p = 0.592, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.45 to 2.53)

2st

t(252.05) = 0.07, p = 0.943, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-2.39 to 2.57)

resilisnce

1st

t(210.47) = 1.72, p = 0.087, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.17 to 2.54)

2st

t(248.64) = 1.83, p = 0.068, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (-0.12 to 3.43)

social_provision

1st

t(206.24) = 1.75, p = 0.082, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.10 to 1.62)

2st

t(249.90) = 2.27, p = 0.024, Cohen d = -0.74, 95% CI (0.17 to 2.38)

els_value_living

1st

t(199.53) = 1.17, p = 0.245, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.39 to 1.52)

2st

t(252.06) = 1.56, p = 0.119, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-0.25 to 2.13)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(194.69) = 1.95, p = 0.053, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (-0.01 to 1.94)

2st

t(252.98) = 1.75, p = 0.082, Cohen d = -0.65, 95% CI (-0.13 to 2.25)

els

1st

t(191.99) = 1.69, p = 0.092, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-0.25 to 3.31)

2st

t(252.77) = 1.76, p = 0.080, Cohen d = -0.68, 95% CI (-0.23 to 4.04)

social_connect

1st

t(194.69) = -0.75, p = 0.455, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-3.84 to 1.73)

2st

t(252.98) = -1.82, p = 0.070, Cohen d = 0.67, 95% CI (-6.52 to 0.26)

shs_agency

1st

t(193.48) = 1.41, p = 0.160, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.43 to 2.59)

2st

t(252.98) = 1.64, p = 0.102, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (-0.30 to 3.35)

shs_pathway

1st

t(195.65) = 1.80, p = 0.073, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-0.10 to 2.33)

2st

t(252.90) = 0.93, p = 0.354, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.79 to 2.20)

shs

1st

t(193.04) = 1.66, p = 0.099, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.41 to 4.80)

2st

t(252.95) = 1.39, p = 0.166, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-0.93 to 5.36)

esteem

1st

t(229.67) = 0.00, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.00, 95% CI (-0.46 to 0.46)

2st

t(246.93) = 0.89, p = 0.374, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.35 to 0.93)

mlq_search

1st

t(210.80) = 1.34, p = 0.181, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.33 to 1.76)

2st

t(248.55) = -0.14, p = 0.890, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.47 to 1.28)

mlq_presence

1st

t(203.00) = 0.44, p = 0.662, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.01 to 1.58)

2st

t(250.96) = 0.35, p = 0.725, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.35 to 1.94)

mlq

1st

t(205.01) = 0.94, p = 0.349, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-1.10 to 3.10)

2st

t(250.30) = 0.16, p = 0.870, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-2.47 to 2.92)

empower

1st

t(199.00) = 1.32, p = 0.187, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.42 to 2.15)

2st

t(252.21) = -0.50, p = 0.616, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-2.01 to 1.19)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(216.43) = 0.03, p = 0.976, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.74 to 0.76)

2st

t(247.36) = 1.17, p = 0.243, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.41 to 1.60)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(222.02) = -0.76, p = 0.448, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-1.28 to 0.57)

2st

t(246.77) = -1.86, p = 0.065, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-2.44 to 0.07)

sss_affective

1st

t(195.60) = 0.27, p = 0.787, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.94 to 1.24)

2st

t(252.91) = -1.59, p = 0.114, Cohen d = 0.58, 95% CI (-2.41 to 0.26)

sss_behavior

1st

t(196.12) = -0.29, p = 0.776, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-1.27 to 0.95)

2st

t(252.84) = -1.01, p = 0.312, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-2.06 to 0.66)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(200.74) = 0.29, p = 0.771, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.93 to 1.25)

2st

t(251.69) = -0.90, p = 0.366, Cohen d = 0.31, 95% CI (-2.00 to 0.74)

sss

1st

t(191.41) = 0.10, p = 0.924, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-2.92 to 3.22)

2st

t(252.62) = -1.17, p = 0.242, Cohen d = 0.46, 95% CI (-5.84 to 1.48)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(120.90) = 2.39, p = 0.037, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (0.08 to 0.84)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(108.46) = 1.33, p = 0.370, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.27 to 1.37)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(95.08) = 3.02, p = 0.006, Cohen d = -0.65, 95% CI (0.61 to 2.96)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(100.46) = 1.21, p = 0.456, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.20 to 0.82)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(100.83) = 1.86, p = 0.132, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-0.05 to 1.55)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(98.38) = 2.06, p = 0.083, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (0.03 to 1.43)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(107.91) = 3.44, p = 0.002, Cohen d = -0.72, 95% CI (0.49 to 1.84)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(90.75) = -1.83, p = 0.140, Cohen d = 0.40, 95% CI (-3.37 to 0.13)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(96.25) = 0.21, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-0.97 to 1.20)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(99.31) = 0.38, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-1.16 to 1.72)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(93.46) = 2.05, p = 0.086, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (0.05 to 3.07)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(92.86) = 0.11, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-0.74 to 0.82)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(98.52) = 0.80, p = 0.857, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.84 to 1.97)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(96.75) = 0.85, p = 0.798, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.89 to 2.21)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(103.75) = 2.19, p = 0.061, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (0.13 to 2.55)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(100.96) = 0.45, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.56 to 0.89)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(96.74) = 1.63, p = 0.211, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.13 to 1.35)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(93.81) = 1.35, p = 0.360, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.22 to 1.18)

els

1st vs 2st

t(92.21) = 1.66, p = 0.202, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.20 to 2.22)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(93.81) = -2.11, p = 0.075, Cohen d = 0.46, 95% CI (-4.13 to -0.12)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(93.10) = 1.55, p = 0.248, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.23 to 1.89)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(94.39) = 0.43, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.70 to 1.08)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(92.83) = 1.09, p = 0.553, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.81 to 2.82)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(118.16) = 0.67, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.32 to 0.65)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(103.97) = -0.05, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-0.96 to 0.91)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(98.90) = 1.39, p = 0.334, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.32 to 1.80)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(100.18) = 0.83, p = 0.813, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-1.02 to 2.51)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(96.41) = -0.42, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-1.20 to 0.78)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(107.86) = 1.94, p = 0.110, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.01 to 1.40)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(111.97) = -1.93, p = 0.112, Cohen d = 0.40, 95% CI (-1.81 to 0.02)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(94.36) = -2.96, p = 0.008, Cohen d = 0.64, 95% CI (-1.98 to -0.39)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(94.67) = -1.79, p = 0.152, Cohen d = 0.39, 95% CI (-1.56 to 0.08)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(97.48) = -1.90, p = 0.120, Cohen d = 0.41, 95% CI (-1.69 to 0.04)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(91.87) = -2.50, p = 0.028, Cohen d = 0.54, 95% CI (-4.66 to -0.53)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(117.84) = 0.80, p = 0.845, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.22 to 0.52)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(106.43) = -0.49, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-0.99 to 0.60)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(94.10) = 1.84, p = 0.139, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.08 to 2.19)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(99.07) = -0.08, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-0.51 to 0.47)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(99.41) = 0.56, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-0.56 to 0.99)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(97.15) = 1.10, p = 0.546, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.30 to 1.05)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(105.93) = 0.09, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-0.62 to 0.68)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(90.08) = -1.80, p = 0.151, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-3.22 to 0.16)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(95.18) = -0.08, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.09 to 1.01)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(98.00) = -0.14, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-1.49 to 1.30)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(92.60) = 0.99, p = 0.648, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.73 to 2.19)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(92.04) = 1.34, p = 0.366, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.25 to 1.27)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(97.28) = 1.43, p = 0.310, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.38 to 2.34)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(95.64) = 1.47, p = 0.288, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.39 to 2.61)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(102.10) = 1.47, p = 0.287, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.30 to 2.04)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(99.53) = -0.98, p = 0.655, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-1.06 to 0.36)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(95.63) = 0.64, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.49 to 0.95)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(92.92) = 1.13, p = 0.522, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.29 to 1.07)

els

1st vs 2st

t(91.45) = 1.08, p = 0.568, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.54 to 1.81)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(92.92) = -0.05, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-1.99 to 1.88)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(92.26) = 0.75, p = 0.914, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.64 to 1.41)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(93.46) = 1.39, p = 0.335, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.26 to 1.47)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(92.02) = 1.11, p = 0.541, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.77 to 2.73)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(115.33) = -0.53, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-0.59 to 0.34)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(102.30) = 1.71, p = 0.179, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.12 to 1.69)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(97.62) = 1.43, p = 0.314, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.29 to 1.76)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(98.81) = 1.76, p = 0.161, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.19 to 3.22)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(95.33) = 2.19, p = 0.062, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (0.10 to 2.02)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(105.88) = 0.32, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.58 to 0.80)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(109.66) = -0.14, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-0.95 to 0.82)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(93.43) = 0.09, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-0.73 to 0.80)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(93.72) = -0.50, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-0.99 to 0.59)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(96.32) = -0.09, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-0.88 to 0.80)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(91.13) = -0.26, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-2.26 to 1.73)

Plot

Clinical significance